Part One: Evangelical History In A Quadrilateral Nutshell
Part Two: Quadrilateral"isms" - Racism, Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and Neo-evangelicalism.
Part Three: Evangelicalism And Politics
Part Four: Identifying And Clarifying Modern Evangelicalism
__________________________
My wife and I attended a marriage conference in which the speakers talked about “polar opposite” trajectories. One spouse is strict with the kids, the other lax. The strict spouse doubles down to make up for the lax spouse…who also doubles down to offset the increasingly controlling other spouse. This trajectory in polar opposite directions never ends well. A ditch becomes a chasm over time.
I think the same thing is happening in evangelicalism, and it’s currently centered around politics more than theology.
Evangelicals have been united for 30 years on two key issues: abortion[1] and religious freedom.[2] Since Supreme Court justices will make the final call on these issues, that’s usually presented as the current foundational evangelical voting trifecta: defunding abortion and maybe overturning Roe; religious freedom; and electing a President who will nominate sympathetic Supreme Court justices.
It’s all the other ones that are moving us further and further apart.
The Evangelical Right thinks only the Big Three should dictate your vote.
The Evangelical Left thinks other issues might actually be more important. There may well be three other issues that should determine your vote.
The Neo-evangelicals take the classic evangelical stance: they all matter. Perhaps we should give people the freedom to follow their conscience.
Take, for example, the issue of protecting life. All of the following have implications in this area: abortion (obviously); war; health care; refugee acceptance policies; the death penalty; environmental protections (think of Flint, MI); addressing the crime/poverty connection; gun deaths; opioid deaths... you get the idea.
All of these issues put lives on the line. What if a Republican pro-life candidate takes none of the other issues that seriously? What if a pro-choice Democrat does? What if there is a pro-life Democrat whose party will stifle her voice on the abortion issue but she’s strong in the other areas? In other words, is there freedom among evangelical Christians of good conscience to share a same value but disagree on what politician or party best defends the sanctity of life? Is there freedom to withhold a vote without feeling judged?
We are now in an era of all or nothing political polarization – and the trajectory is fragmenting evangelical church fellowship.
Think of the recent calls to pray during the impeachment proceedings. This ought to have provided an opportunity simply to pray. From what I could see on my social media, it became immediately partisan.
How did even our prayers become political broadsides?[3]
If evangelicals don’t figure out how to view the world by first consulting the Bible, Christian history, and evangelical statements on faith and culture rather than through the lenses of politics and politicians, this will tear us apart.
How do we do this? We ask the right questions and seek the right opinions.
Since the Bush administration, studies have found the opinion of voters are dramatically swayed simply by attaching the name of a President to a policy.[4] In other words, if you told a Democrat that Bush or Trump was for something, they were far more opposed than they would have been otherwise. If you told a Republican that Obama or Clinton was for something, the same was true. Conversely, they sided with their candidates opinion by a ridiculously higher margin just because their candidate held the position.
Jerry Falwell Jr. infamously told the New York Times, ““I don’t look to the teachings of Jesus for what my political beliefs should be.”
Christians. Evangelicals. This kind of perspective cannot stand, or we will crumble.
We start with the Bible, than add church tradition, then ask what the gatekeepers of church history (theologians, pastors and teachers), our denomination (say, Mennonite) or movement (evangelical, charismatic) have been saying.
Here, I think, is what thoughtful Christian questioning looks like.
Can evangelicalism repair the ruins?
I doubt it.
I hope I’m wrong.
Meanwhile, I suppose I am a stubborn neo-evangelical, put off by the theologically liberal Wild West on the Left and the tone-deaf fundamentalist Culture Wars on the Right. I cling to the center, not because it’s perfect, but because it establishes a theological foundation for orthodoxy.
As a neo-evangelical, I stand for the freedom to follow one’s conscience in the voting booth without shame, the freedom to ask heterodox questions, the freedom from allegiance to a party of the empire, the freedom to speak truth to power and surrender power so that I can serve and love even those who are my enemies, knowing that I am following in the footsteps of Jesus.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] Interestingly, it was not a big deal at the time of Roe v Wade. It gained momentum over time.
[2] Currently, the religious freedom issue revolves around wedding cakes and adoption agencies.
[3] I love my church. We decided before the 2016 election was decided that we would pray for the new President, whoever it was. We spent the Sunday morning after the election praying as a church. It was non-partisan and beautiful.
[4] “Americans on the right and left change their minds after hearing where Trump stand.” The Conversation.
[5] I know. That’s a lot. But a lot is at stake.
__________________________
My wife and I attended a marriage conference in which the speakers talked about “polar opposite” trajectories. One spouse is strict with the kids, the other lax. The strict spouse doubles down to make up for the lax spouse…who also doubles down to offset the increasingly controlling other spouse. This trajectory in polar opposite directions never ends well. A ditch becomes a chasm over time.
I think the same thing is happening in evangelicalism, and it’s currently centered around politics more than theology.
Evangelicals have been united for 30 years on two key issues: abortion[1] and religious freedom.[2] Since Supreme Court justices will make the final call on these issues, that’s usually presented as the current foundational evangelical voting trifecta: defunding abortion and maybe overturning Roe; religious freedom; and electing a President who will nominate sympathetic Supreme Court justices.
It’s all the other ones that are moving us further and further apart.
- Immigration: The current evangelical love of walls would have been unrecognizable 30 years ago. A cautious but thorough embrace of immigrants (offering ‘sanctuary churches’ for illegal refugees from El Salvador in the 70s) fragmented into either all caution or all embrace, with the trajectory leading to the extremes of walls vs. open borders, stances that are now a serious part of real contention between evangelicals who basically all had a shared opinion on immigrants and refugees 10 years ago.
- Social Justice: An evangelical said – as evangelicals have been prone to do - “I think we should take the issue of racism more seriously.” Another one said, “Aren’t Marxist SJWs also making a big deal about racism?” “Well, yeah, but just because they think it’s important doesn’t mean it’s not.” “Ah! You’ve fallen into liberal deception!” And the polar opposite trajectory escalated.
- War: evangelicals went from the promotion of either peace or Just War Theory into a split that began when the Right began confusing America’s missions with God’s will (starting with Nixon’s leverage of the communist scare). Now, evangelicals on the Right are the group in the US most likely to support pre-emptive strikes and be okay with torture. Evangelicals on the left are becoming pacifists. #trajectory
- Poverty/Social Safety Net (welfare, SS, Medicaid, health care): Giving someone a fish while teaching them to fish has become an either/or fight. “I think we should consider what it looks like to give people an insurance fish.” “What are you, a socialist? They should work for that!” #trajectory
- Economy: In the 1970s, and National Evangelical Association issued a statement about the dangers of materialism. Clinton’s economic mantra of “It’s the economy, stupid!” was widely denigrated as a sad sign of America’s heart for mammon. Now, it is the issue that carries the most weight in the evangelical vote, while the Left marches against the 1%. #trajectory
The Evangelical Right thinks only the Big Three should dictate your vote.
The Evangelical Left thinks other issues might actually be more important. There may well be three other issues that should determine your vote.
The Neo-evangelicals take the classic evangelical stance: they all matter. Perhaps we should give people the freedom to follow their conscience.
Take, for example, the issue of protecting life. All of the following have implications in this area: abortion (obviously); war; health care; refugee acceptance policies; the death penalty; environmental protections (think of Flint, MI); addressing the crime/poverty connection; gun deaths; opioid deaths... you get the idea.
All of these issues put lives on the line. What if a Republican pro-life candidate takes none of the other issues that seriously? What if a pro-choice Democrat does? What if there is a pro-life Democrat whose party will stifle her voice on the abortion issue but she’s strong in the other areas? In other words, is there freedom among evangelical Christians of good conscience to share a same value but disagree on what politician or party best defends the sanctity of life? Is there freedom to withhold a vote without feeling judged?
We are now in an era of all or nothing political polarization – and the trajectory is fragmenting evangelical church fellowship.
Think of the recent calls to pray during the impeachment proceedings. This ought to have provided an opportunity simply to pray. From what I could see on my social media, it became immediately partisan.
- The Left heard, “Pray for justice to roll down on the corrupt President and the new swamp he has introduced.”
- The Right heard, “Pray that President will be vindicated from this partisan witch hunt fueled by enemies of the faith who hate Trump because of his support of evangelical policy priorities.”
- Neo-evangelicals were praying that truth would be revealed and justice would be served.
How did even our prayers become political broadsides?[3]
If evangelicals don’t figure out how to view the world by first consulting the Bible, Christian history, and evangelical statements on faith and culture rather than through the lenses of politics and politicians, this will tear us apart.
How do we do this? We ask the right questions and seek the right opinions.
Since the Bush administration, studies have found the opinion of voters are dramatically swayed simply by attaching the name of a President to a policy.[4] In other words, if you told a Democrat that Bush or Trump was for something, they were far more opposed than they would have been otherwise. If you told a Republican that Obama or Clinton was for something, the same was true. Conversely, they sided with their candidates opinion by a ridiculously higher margin just because their candidate held the position.
Jerry Falwell Jr. infamously told the New York Times, ““I don’t look to the teachings of Jesus for what my political beliefs should be.”
Christians. Evangelicals. This kind of perspective cannot stand, or we will crumble.
We start with the Bible, than add church tradition, then ask what the gatekeepers of church history (theologians, pastors and teachers), our denomination (say, Mennonite) or movement (evangelical, charismatic) have been saying.
Here, I think, is what thoughtful Christian questioning looks like.
- Immigration: What does the Bible say about governments, borders, laws, immigrants, refugees, and the responsibility of nations, churches, and individuals? Have Christian/Protestant/evangelical gatekeepers (organization like the NEA) issued statements and weighed in on this issue in the past? What did they conclude? What policy will allow the gospel to spread more effectively and the “salt and light” of the church made more powerful? THEN, is there a political party of candidate who represents this?[5]
- Social Justice/Poverty/Social Safety Nets: What does the Bible say about justice? Who do we fight for, and how, and why? What does the Bible say about individual responsibility and community responsibility? Are there biblically-mandated rights, and if so, what are our responsibilities as a nation, a church, and individually? Have Christian/Protestant/evangelical gatekeepers issued statements and weighed in on this issue in the past? What policy will allow the gospel to spread more effectively and the “salt and light” of the church made more powerful? THEN, is there a political party or candidate who represents this?
- War: How should Christians think about war? What is Just War Theory? Have Christian/Protestant/evangelical gatekeepers issued statements and weighed in on this issue in the past? What policy will allow the gospel to spread more effectively and the “salt and light” of the church made more powerful? THEN, is there a political party or candidate who represents this?
- Economy: What does the Bible say about money? What is money for? What rights does the government have in taxation? How important is a wealthy economy vs. a poor economy biblically, and why? How will the church – and individual Christians – be impacted by having more or less money? How should the government, the church and individuals take care of the poor? Have Christian/Protestant evangelical gatekeepers issued statements and weighed in on this issue in the past? What policy will allow the gospel to spread more effectively and the “salt and light” of the church made more powerful? THEN, is there a political party or candidate who represents this?
* * * * *
Can evangelicalism repair the ruins?
I doubt it.
I hope I’m wrong.
Meanwhile, I suppose I am a stubborn neo-evangelical, put off by the theologically liberal Wild West on the Left and the tone-deaf fundamentalist Culture Wars on the Right. I cling to the center, not because it’s perfect, but because it establishes a theological foundation for orthodoxy.
As a neo-evangelical, I stand for the freedom to follow one’s conscience in the voting booth without shame, the freedom to ask heterodox questions, the freedom from allegiance to a party of the empire, the freedom to speak truth to power and surrender power so that I can serve and love even those who are my enemies, knowing that I am following in the footsteps of Jesus.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] Interestingly, it was not a big deal at the time of Roe v Wade. It gained momentum over time.
[2] Currently, the religious freedom issue revolves around wedding cakes and adoption agencies.
[3] I love my church. We decided before the 2016 election was decided that we would pray for the new President, whoever it was. We spent the Sunday morning after the election praying as a church. It was non-partisan and beautiful.
[4] “Americans on the right and left change their minds after hearing where Trump stand.” The Conversation.
[5] I know. That’s a lot. But a lot is at stake.
No comments:
Post a Comment